1. The negotiation for the resolution of the Cyprus problem are progressing: the significant progress announced by the representative of the UN, Mr. Downer, are crucial as they are about the constitutional aspect of the problem, i.e. how the two communities will share power in reunited federal state. This is 50% of the problem; the rest consists of property, international aspects, settlers etc: apart from property, which requires negotiations, the rest are a matter of a political decision. The progress announced with the arrival of the UN SG is a welcome development.
2. What is worrisome is the negative role of some political parties both north and south of the barbed wire. EDEK’s withdrawal from the government coalition at this crucial moment is an act of irresponsibility and leap into the void. Of course, its’ role when it was within the Government was not one which offered support to the policy for resolving the Cyprus problem. Moreover, similar to EDEK is the position of DIKO; is thought that it will not withdraw from the Government but no one knows. In any case these party leaderships cannot be relied upon in supporting reunification. What is most worrisome however, is the position taken by Nicos Anastasiades, the leader of the opposition, who up to recently consistently supported the efforts to resolve the problem. He has changed his position, aligning himself now with e rejectionist camp and begun to speak of ‘unacceptable concessions of Christofias without negotiations’. This is the most dramatic u-turn three years before the next general election and undermines the efforts to resolve the problem… As for Mr. Eroglu, it will be a sad development to see voices of chauvinistic past to return to power on the Turkish-Cypriot side.
3. This requires that we persevere in our efforts to resolve the problem and intensify our campaigns and action.
———————————————
Below I am posting the announcement of the socialist initiative, who disagree with EDEK and are consistently backing the negotiations process and are pushing for a solution. It is in Greek: the gist of their argument is that it welcomes the progress of the negotiations, it fully supports the efforts for solution, it considers incomprehensible the current turn and division on the G/C side when there is a progress and calls on the two community leaders to intensify even further the talks to reach a settlement.
Πρωτοβουλία Σοσιαλιστών
Οι επιτευχθείσες συγκλίσεις φέρνουν πλησιέστερα τη λύση
Η Πρωτοβουλία Σοσιαλιστών κρίνει ότι οι συγκλίσεις που έχουν επιτευχθεί στις εντατικές συνομιλίες μας φέρνουν όσο ποτέ πριν πλησιέστερα προς την επίτευξη συνολικής λύσης. Δεδομένου μάλιστα ότι η τουρκική πλευρά έχει μετακινηθεί ουσιωδώς από προηγούμενες θέσεις της, αποτελεί πρόδηλη θετική ένδειξη για πολιτική βούληση της Τουρκίας να κάνει βήματα προς την κατεύθυνση λύσης. Μια τέτοια εξέλιξη δεν μπορεί να είναι άσχετη με την αναθέρμανση του ελληνοτουρκικού διαλόγου και των πρωτοβουλιών που αναπτύσσει η νέα ελληνική κυβέρνηση.
Θεωρούμε ότι η δική μας πλευρά πρέπει να αξιοποιήσει στο μέγιστο δυνατό αυτή τη συγκυρία και να προχωρήσει σε νέο κύκλο εντατικών συνομιλιών με στόχο τη συνολική λύση το ταχύτερο δυνατό. Το καθήκον που προβάλλει για τις υπεύθυνες πολιτικές δυνάμεις του τόπου, ανεξάρτητα από τις επί μέρους διαφωνίες αναφορικά με το συνολικό χειρισμό της διαπραγματευτικής διαδικασίας, θεωρούμε ότι είναι η στήριξη της προσπάθειας του Προέδρου στην παρούσα φάση και η ενθάρρυνσή του να προχωρήσει χωρίς περισπασμούς η ταλαντεύσεις στην μέχρι τέλους εξάντληση όλων των δυνατοτήτων για την επίτευξη λύσης.
Μέσα σε αυτά τα πλαίσια, θεωρούμε ακατανόητο τον θόρυβο και την πολυδιάσπαση του εσωτερικού μετώπου πράγμα που παροπλίζει τον Πρόεδρο αλλά που επίσης κλονίζει την αξιοπιστία της ελληνοκυπριακής κοινότητας στο σύνολό της αναφορικά με την ειλικρινή από μέρους της αποδοχή της διζωνικής δικοινοτικής ομοσπονδίας, πράγμα που, τουλάχιστον στο επίπεδο της ηγεσίας, είχε γίνει ομόφωνα αποδεκτό από της Συμφωνίας της 8ης Ιουλίου 2006.
Η Πρωτοβουλία Σοσιαλιστών τονίζει, με αυτή την ευκαιρία, την ανάγκη οράματος για μια επανενωμένη πολυπολιτισμική Κύπρο στα πλαίσια των σύγχρονων ευρωπαϊκών αντιλήψεων ενός πολιτικού κράτους, καθώς και την ανάγκη συνειδητοποίησης από όλους μας της επείγουσας αναγκαιότητας της λύσης.
7 Φεβρουαρίου 2010
.
Tags: DIKO, Eroglou, significant progress; U-turn Anastasides; EDK
Loading ...
I think there is a simple answer to all the questions posed. Neither DIKO nor EDEK are happy with a solution based on BBF (Bizonal Bicommunal Federation) that will entail political equality of the two communities. In fact, both parties are staunchly against federation, probably of any form. What was surprising was how in heaven the three parties cohabited for two years when their most important agenda was the Cyprus problem, as they claimed.
Regarding Anastasiades, I agree that the recent messages sent by him are not encouraging. However, when AKEL and Christofias were told that Anastasiades is their only genuine ally in the struggle to solve the problem, they outright rejected any deal with him because there is a «huge chasm between us and DISI». This has made me very skeptical about Christofias’s will to solve the Cyprus issue. Did he or anyone else, really believe that he would solve it with the help of the rejectionists?
There are so many holes in both the comment and the quoted announcement (btw very doubtfull that this comes from EDEK people – who are they?), that it would take hours to go over them all.. indicatively:
1. Constitutional aspect is «50% of the problem» and pretty much solved: (a) This is a minor aspect and, as stated by the leaders, by far the easiest, which is why they started with it. ALL the difficult aspects lie ahead. (b) It is «solved» only in the mind of our leadership – because it relies on concessions revolving around the Turkish rotational presidency (with executive authority), which all polls say is unacceptable to the vast majority of GCs and hence can never pass at referendum.
2. The Turkish side made concessions etc: Please name just one concession made by the Turkish side.
Unless we look at the problem in the eye and work hard to understand what type of a BBF can be acceptable by a majority population in both sides, we are all wasting our time..
Dear Raftis, Christofias has many factors to balance. Anastasiades is his only genuine ally for the Cyprus problem, but his support is not sufficient to find a solution. When I as asking Akel leaders one year ago «what is going on» they were very anxious because they were very surprised by Talat positions which were very far from Anans plan and from what they know it is possible for GC to accept.
When on the table of negotiations Christofias does not see propositions leading to a solution, it is not possible for him to loose the support of the political forces who have elected him. He might kick out from the government these parties and get Anastasiades support just before solution. After solution, the political environment would radically change, and part of these two parties would react with the new political conditions. And to be just with Anastasiades, he takes his position now also in the absence of hope for a solution. When a solution was in front of him, he didn’t choose his party coherence but what he thought is good for Cyprus.
The real question is: Why these convergence come now, after 2 years of negotiations and one month before Talat leave his position? Why Turkey called the ambassadors to decide some evolution on the table on negotiations just two months ago and not before, and why Talat have not presented before any reasonable proposition? What he accepted now and we have convergence, he couldn’t accept it one year ago so that we can go ahead? These propositions was on the table of negotiations since one year. To be just with Christofias, what reasonable proposition he rejected on the table of negotiations?
Sceptic, TC accepted that their leader in the common state will be elected by 20% of greek votes, exactly the same proportion their votes count for the election of the GC leader.
If you are not able to see the different dynamic that this turkish concession creates, you will never be able to understand that rotational presidency is not the same think under these terms.
You argue that GC will never accept a solution because of rotational presidency. GC will have a lot of aspects to put on the balance when they will be asked to decide and not only this one. I argue that GC under a reasonable settlement with the problems of security solved and reasonable guaranties that what was decided will be realized, will accept. EDEK will not accept and a part of DIKO, but this is not a problem.
εμένα τώρα γιατι αυτη η ανακοίνωση μου λέει περισσότερο απο το περιεχομενο της ότι ο Χριστόφιας θα πρέπει να νιωθει πολυ μόνος του για να επιστρατεύσει και δηλώσεις «ανεξαρτητων» κινησεων για την …προοδο ;
@ aceras
‘When I as asking Akel leaders one year ago “what is going on” they were very anxious because they were very surprised by Talat positions which were very far from Anans plan.’
When I was asked by an AKEL leader to vote Christofias at the presidential elections I expressed the following aprehension:
A leader who advised the greek cypriots to vote NO to a Anan plan, how can he advice them in the near or not so near future to say YES to a plan that is surely going to be worst. And even if he does ask them, what arguments is he going to use and how convincing will he be?
Aceras, a Turkish concession would have been to accept the unanimous National Council resolution of 89 which called for cross-voting as you described it (which I agree is a good thing – but impacts both sides equally, so not really a concession) BUT with a permanent GC President and TC Vice-President. This was our position against the Turkish (then characterised «extreme») proposal of rotational presidency.
«Ola ta lefta» as we say is about the the Presidency, and the fact that for X years in every term we MUST have a president from a community that is less than 18% of the population.. this is made far worse by the fact that under the agreed terms, this person will have executive authority and winning vote!
As I said before, I believe that there is NO way that the majority of GCs will accept at referendum that the FINAL DECISION MAKER in Cyprus will be Turkish/ TC.
The polls published by Ant1 last week asked clearly about acceptance of this assuming all other provisions of a solution are acceptable – 80% said they will reject an otherwise acceptable solution, solely because of this.
Christofias keeps ignoring what the public says – if he continues like this and takes an unacceptable plan to vote, he will be held responsible for the price we will all pay after a second No vote (a «suicide», in Anastasiades’s words).
@Sceptic
1.The effort to belittle the importance of the constitutional issue which goes to the heart of what the solution will look like and all the arguments about ‘functionality’ and ‘viability’ the G/C side has been advancing for years is interesting, but to me not surprising. Our side has always underplayed this aspect, preferring to speak about the invasion, occupation and demographic alterations i.e. settlers and property questions. However, for anyone who seriously appreciates what needs to be done for the resolution of the problem, the constitutional issue/power sharing/ governance is the crux of the internal aspect of problem! The other issues are of course important, but the agreement on this issue
(a) exposes the side which refuses to proceed any further – i.e. Ankara with cannot use any excuse for the troops if the Cypriots have agreed how to rule themselves;
(b) The issue of property can be resolved without a resolution of the problem but it is the other issue that requires negotiation around the law (EU, ECHR etc) and the balance of forces.
(c) The rest of the chapters (‘internal’ and ‘external’) are purely matters of a political decision and can be swiftly resolved. The constitutional aspect consists of 17 subchapters and it is minefield but has been resolved; they merely need to cross the ‘Ts’ and dot the ‘Is’ but they will not make a big issue out of it now. If and when the close the economy and EU chapters we can confidently say that they have come a long way.
2. I would be at least cautious, if not outright suspicious, with the pools referred to, than assume that the polls by Ant1 or others of this mould have any bearing on the reality on the ground. Trying to undermine the agreement by putting this point or that point to a poll is a well-known tactic which offers very little in our debates. There is certainly a contingent of opinion on the G/C about 20% who are hard core rejectionists. The leadership of the rejectionist camp were defeated in the 2008 elections and the euroelections and do not have any serious leadership at the moment but they are (a) vociferous; (b) have a lot of money i.e. the church etc and (c) they have control/access to the media. So they are a force to be reckoned with.
(3) As for your argument that: «The polls published by Ant1 last week asked clearly about acceptance of this assuming all other provisions of a solution are acceptable – 80% said they will reject an otherwise acceptable solution, solely because of this.» My answer to this is that this is a sophistry which tells us nothing: the idea that I would support something (whatever) I consider unacceptable is ridiculous; this is a loaded and leading questions that means nothing. Yet, even with such a ridiculous questions 20% refused to follow their logic – perhaps expressing how desperate things are!
@Aceras
The argument of how long did it take to get here and why so long is not constructive at the moment; it is only relevant for those looking for something to criticize or future historians. Yes, it took long, too long some would say. But now we have ‘significant progress’: I don’t agree with the assessment that it is ‘too little, too late’. I say that it seems that under such pressure of time we can make progress and lets press on. The time is ripe for all sides and I can’t see another conjuncture of this sort emerging. It’s now or never.
So Christofias and Talat must move on and make history. The rest will be swept aside, or we will be such in the mud for many years to come.
γιατί μετατρέψατε την ιστοσελίδα σε αγγλικά ρε παιδιά? βαρέθηκα πια αυτά τα αγγλικά παντού στη ζωή μας, αν είναι έτσι πάω να ζήσω αγγλία να ησήχάσω
the page has not been converted to english.
it is simply bi-lingual and there are plans to have it tri-lingual soon to facilitate inter as well as intra-communal Cypriot dialogue
but in any case if you notice aperigrapte most articles are still in greek
rose speak more clearly and in english please. i think you are raising a significant topic here.
@απεριγραπτος: ουί ράιτ ιν ίνγλις μπικόζ ουί χόουπ το ινβάϊτ τέρκις σύπριοτς το δε ντισκάσσιονς δατ τέϊκ πλέϊς ιν δις φόρουμ. Αϊ αμ σούαρ δατ δις έφφορτ γουίλ μπι μέτ γουίδ γιούαρ αντερστάντινγκ. Αϊ ασσούαρ γιού σέρ δατ ίβεν ίφ γιού μουβ το ίνγκλαντ, γιού γουίλ νοτ φάϊντ ένιουαν χου σπίκς ίνγλις ας γουέλλ ας δε πίπολ ιν δις φόρουμ….
@Aceras:
Why now you asked.
http://www.athina984.gr/node/75467.
«To be just with Christofias, what reasonable proposition he rejected on the table of negotiations?
He is the one who said no he is the one who has to say what he wants.
Turkey says everywhere that they are ready for a solution and they are asking for intensive negotiations. Christofias is refusing all the proposals No to trimeris, No to pentameris, no intesive talks at the moment.
So what holds Christofias from enganging in intensive talks for as long as it takes to achieve a solution? What day-to-day runnings of the government are more important? What could possibly be on his agenda that is more important and pressing? A few years ago no one could even imagine Turkey saying that they want immediate and intensive negotiations. Can anyone fathom the situation where the GCs are the ones shying away from it?
For God’s sake! Is that all the willpower he can muster???
I beg to disagree with the analysis concerning anastasiadis.
Firstly, because his critisism – whether one agrees or disagrees with it – is not the same with the critisism christofias receives from his partners.
What is the critic from anastasiades ?
That he demanded that intensive negotiation began from june ? (sth that talat also wanted )
or that more topics besides that constitution should have been discussed ?
He disagrees on the tactics while akels partners (for the last 7 years) disagree with that solution, and we present all of them as one group – «those who critisize of the president»
Let me remind you that just a couple of weeks ago, christofides of akel, repeatetly in a series of tv and radio talks, «complained» that their partners were not shooting at dysi (και αφήνουν τον δησυ στο απυρόβλητο ; was the axact wording)… arguing more or less: why are you accusing us, when dysi is less patriotic ?
whatever anastasiades does to them – sorry but they deserve it. (εν χακκι τους – τζαι κόμμα εν παραπάνω που τους αξίζει)
He supported christofias up to now more that any opposition party in the history of the cyprus problem. And well he did not receive the same attitude from akel. It is the responsibility of christofias to approch him now. And i am sure he will respond…. but it doesnt seem that akel is yet ready to do that.
@Gregoris:
The translation of my comment :
It seems that Christofias feels very desperate and isolated if we see announcements, from “independent” movements, of such kind …
…
@Stelios Papalangi: I am afraid you are correct Stellios. Besides Anastasiades there are other positive voices in DISI, such as, Christow Stylianides, Christos Pourgourides and a few others, not to mention Markides who is not in DISI any more but is one of the most level headed Cypriots around!
rose i expected you to put forward an argument, not just insinuations.
i agree that Christofias feels isolated because of DISI’s apparent shift towards rejectionism (time will show if this is final and hence tragic)
but i disagree that the Socialist initiative is not independent. i am not part of it but i am certain that these people are sincere in their quest for reunification. and if Christofias diverts from this goal they will be among the first ones to criticise him
@Stelios Papalangi:
«…He (Anastasiades)supported christofias up to now more that any opposition party in the history of the cyprus problem. And well he did not receive the same attitude from akel. It is the responsibility of christofias to approch him now. And i am sure he will respond…. but it doesnt seem that akel is yet ready to do that.»
I agree with what Stelios writes in his above post. I also agree that Christofias and AKEL do not have what it takes (never had and probably never will) to cooperate with Anastasiades or DHSY on the Cyprus problem. The next one or two months could be a little difficult for Christofias, but after that and if Eroglu is «elected» in the occupied areas then everything should become much easier as there will be someone on the «other side» to blame for the lack of progress in almost every aspect of the ongoing negotiations. Simply put, Christofias and AKEL seem to be a lot more preoccupied with how to stay in power than what they are with a solution in Cyprus.
This announcement of the «the socialist initiative» has nothing to do with EDEK apart from from the leader of this initiative which is the former vice president of EDEK mr. Takis Hatzidimitriou, the very few members of this initiative basically come from EDY – Mr. & Ms. Vasiliou and Mr. Papapetrou and some other people. They, all supported ANAN plan and they were on side of Mr. Christofias for the last election from round 1.
Their President is a well known politician for changing sites! we was a member of Georgatzis Teams in 1963 fighting TC, later he was with Mr. Koutsou against BBF, he was with Mr. Lyssarides for many years and later he became ANAN plan supporter for a big Yes.
This announcement is NOT on the official website of this movement sosialistes.org and their last announcement was about 6 months ago
Απάντηση
Ι wasted most of my day today listening to Stephanos Stephanou, Demetris Christofias and Andros Kyprianou hoping that something in their statements would signify a change in their approach…
there was not a single thing that could make me think that those guys are really taking Cyprus into a reunified future.
My comment about the Socialists’ Movement was very clear, Gregoris, the movement had tight up her activities and formation with the pre-election campaign of Demetris Christofias.
Now, many of its members are known to me personally and I have no doubt that they genuinely believe [and by extension this is the reason they support] Christofias.
But as a movement, they are not independent, and simply they cannot be!
Like the other party – United Democrats – regretfully they became the mouth if not the tail of AKEL … on paper they are an indepentant party!
So, in my previous comment I did not reflect on the announcement’s content itself rather what trigger it.
…BTW did u notice the lever of hysteria rising in Andros Kyprianou voice addressing AKEL members, asking them to “become the shield” and armor of their party!!!?
i believe that this hysteria will increase …
and i really hope to be so overwelming that Christofias will be forced to WANT/WISH/ASK FOR a solution instead of all the alternatives he has to face
Gordios, when did Takis Hadjidemetriou hold hands with Koutsou against BBF? Can you please clarify? Your tone is very misleading too. Those who voted against the Annan Plan and basically cannot stomach BBF include people from the entire political spectrum. Most EOKA B supporters (if not all) are against BBF and of course voted against the Annan plan in 2004. Those on the left or centre left that voted like them, did so for different reasons, surely. You shouldn’t insinuate that because they found themselves on the same side, on a single issue in 2004, is a sin. This is not fair and it is a blow well below the belt. It is a terrible Cypriot practice, to label people like this.
Also, EDI did not block vote for Christofias in the presidential elections. Many voted for Themistocleous, who made a bloody good job in exposing the shortcomings of Papadopoulos and his policies on the Cyprob and quite a few voted for Kasoulides. Those that voted for Christofias believed that he would be the right person to try to solve our problem, especially while the leader of the TC community was Talat. You cannot fault this argument. However, the basic task for all solution supporters in 2008 was to get rid of Papadopoulos. EDEK and DIKO, who do not want BBF under any circumstances, supported Christofias and played a crucial role in getting him elected but here, there was always a price to be paid. Both parties would work within the government to prevent solution, basically undermining Christofias if he sincerely went for the necessary compromises. We have all witnessed this over the last two years.
Unfortunately, for various (ridiculous) reasons, AKEL could never accept that only DISI could provide the much needed momentum and support for Christofias to shoulder the huge burden of agreeing a compromise solution with the Turkish Cypriots. The coalition partners became an opposition voice within the governement for two years while Anastasiades, who was the opposition, behaved very responsible over this period, probably to his own detriment, knowing how politics work in this hapless island.
What needs to be done now is to come clean. Let the forces of solution come together and give their best shot for solution. I am not saying that this is an easy task. It is extremely hard right now because turkey is not itching for solution at this instance, with its EU future still in balance and the RoC a full member of this exclusive club. Perhaps Christofias understands this only too well and he does not want to jeopardise the future of AKEL (party comes first) for many Akelites think that an alliance of any sort with DISI will take a toll on voters. Since no solution is seen in the near future, it might be better to safeguard the unity of the party. Probably this is how Christofias sees things right now and like the rejectionists he probably prays for Eroglu to come to power and perhaps kill two birds with one shot. the othewr bird being the blame for not solving the problem because of the intransigence of the other side.
@Stelios
I think that you have missed the point about Anastasiades. There may be point of criticism (in my view misguided) regarding the use of timetables and intensifications of talks etc which show Anastasiades willingness to see the process moving forward. But you fail to see the qualitative shift when Anastasiades decided to cross over to nationalist-chauvinist side when he said that «unacceptable concessions were made without negotiations». It is one thing to criticize the pace of negotiations, or missing the deadlines, or need of timeline, or the need to improve on the procedure etc or the usefulness of The EU etc; it is quite another matter to criticize the content of the solution as essentially selling out to the Turkish side. Those who connect the views of Anastasiades to the others of the modernist/progressive wing of DESY i.e. Stylianides, Pourgourides, Katy Clerides etc and Markides (who resigned from DESY) must surely see the qualitative difference between their views and Anastasiades new turn: DESY is deeply divided: The progressive/modernist wing above has little if anything to do with the far right wing of likes of Samson, Themistokleous, Theocharous etc. Of course we have the jelly-fish like politicians who swing to both sides e.g. Tornaridis etc. But if Anastasidaes now has decided to cross over that side then this marks an end of the internal conjncture.
I sincerely hope that Anastasiades retracts from this dangerous and opportunistic turn; otherwise he will destroy the chances we have, which happen to be the final one in the search for a solution to reunify the country. also he will kill off whatever respect he has won over the last 8-9 years, when many began to see him as a reasoned voice of the Right, a kind of progressive right-winger or ‘conservative peace builder’. If not, he will drag politics back to gutter and with grave consequences for all, including himself: the far right will never forgive him for supporting the Annan plan, never mind how much he wears the ‘fustanelles and tsarouhia’ / Greek flags etc to appease them; they will support the most ‘authentic’ i.e. the most consistently nationalistic-chauvinistic contester…
I agree with Dionisis Dionisiou in Politis last Sunday who asked Anastasiades to choose between the two incompatible positions: to be a statesman suited for the future reunited Cyprus in Europe or to masquerade in the fustanelles begging the extremists to voting for president in 3 years time. He is bright and can see the future but it is his call…
@Trim
DESY is no saint for sure but if these negotiations fail it will not be due to their shortcomings with any stretch of the imagination.
@gordios
Mr Hadjidemetriou has been a very well known and repected MP. The fact that he «changed sides» as you say means that he has an open mind and eyes to the world. Most of our politicians still live in the ’60s and that’s our biggest problem as a country.
@Raftis
«What needs to be done now is to come clean. »
…well, u ask for the most simple and yet the most rare thing in Banana Republic – «come clean» is an impossible task!
@rose: Absolutely, there is more chance to get a turkey to shout «long live Xmas» than bananiots to behave responsibly, it seems.
@Raftis: When Federation was accepted as the basis of a future solution to our problem, Mr. Koustou took an initiative to inform GC people about what Federation is about, he was and still is against this type of solution, Mr. Hatzigeorgiou was a supporter of this initiative and he was helping and supporting Mr. Koutsou on this.
You must remember that Mr. Hatzigeorgiou was a high rank member of EDEK at that time and he was supporting EDEK policy at that period. Check this out before you say that i try mislead anyone.
@Pavlos, “changed sides” is not always a sign of open mildness, Mr. Hatzigeorgiou lost the chance to become the new leader of EDEK, after the election of Mr. Omirou by then he is not further supporting his former political party.
I think that his political career and his interests is what drives him towards those decisions. He was assigned to various positions with the support of AKEL and he is supporting AKEL to all of its decisions since.
@Gordios
If anyone has been changing sides is EDEK. It has supported and un-supported pretty much every government we’ve seen so far!
By the way it’s Hadjidemetriou not Hadjigeorgiou. You may remember him as the only MP driving an old beetle to parliament having refused to get his tax-free limousine…
@Γόρδιος: I am not sure I follow you. Are you saying that back in 1977 when Makarios accepted bizonal federation Hadjidemetriou was against? When did Koutsou get involved in this issue? I think, if I remember correctly, that when he returned to Cyprus from Greece, he was a supporter of the Klerides line on the Cyprob, just like Hadjicostis of Simerini. Oh, I forgot to mention that Omirou, firmly accepted the provisions of the Annan Plan, until Lyssarides stepped in. Of course, he is entitled to changing his mind, no scorn here.
@Pavlos: OK sorry.. Hadjidemetriou.
Changing sides is referring to changing basic beliefs on an important such as a major belief on how someone is viewing a solution to our problem. And Mr Hadjidemetriou has dramatically changed his beliefs. Can you justify the same for EDEK.
@Raftis: First of all, Makarios accepted a bi communal federation NOT bi zonal, he was discussing a multi zonal bi communal federation.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, Hatzidemetriou was AGAINST the Federation agreed, this initiative took place in 1980-1990, if you need more info I’ will try to give it you(before www I need to go back to my books).
It is true that omirou was close to support the Annan Plan, but Omirou is not under discussion here nor Hatzicostis is.
«It is true that omirou was close to support the Annan Plan, but Omirou is not under discussion here nor Hatzicostis is.»
So why did you choose to bring Hadjidemetriou in the discussion? Just to discredit a statement with which you disagree? Omirou is very relevant because he is the EDEK leader. It’s ok for him to change sides since he eventually took yours?
As for EDEK: How someone is viewing the solution to our problem can change. Back in the ’60s it was generally accepted that enosis or taksim would be a solution. Ten years ago a BBF was the solution and now it’s a BBF «with the right content, without a rotating presidency». EDEK has been the opportunist in trying to «back the right horse» in the elections’s second round.
@Pavlos: «So why did you choose to bring Hadjidemetriou in the discussion?» because he is the president of the «Πρωτοβουλία Σοσιαλιστών» – their announcement is in this article!
They supported Clerides at the period so called S300 period, they supported Kyprianou, Makarios, and between DISY-AKEL they choose AKEL the one that said NO to the catastrophic(as they said) Anan Plan but this was not their choice, Papadopoulos was.
They represent 6-8% of GC voters so they try to influence the political situation since they cannot lead.
@Γόρδιος: I still fail to follow your logic Gordios. You tried to discredit Hadjidemetriou by saying that he is liable to change his mind but when you are informed that this can happen to anyone, you do not want to know. Furthermore, you have stated that Makarios wanted a multi zonal bicommunal federation. That is not so and all you need to do is to read carefully the address to the UN Security Council of his Foreign Minister in 1979. In his speech he mentioned, quite explicitly, that we were aiming for a bizonal, bicommunal federation. Of course he was echoing Makarios in his speech and when he returned back, only EDEK reacted, albeit in a very mild manner, because Lyssarides was also a Makarios supporter or to put it blantly, Makarios knew a thing or two about Lyssarides.
Personally, I refuse to engane in this insulting game. We should not allow anyone to drag the level of the debate to these levels. I have the utmost respect for Mr Hadjidemetriou, who is a man of principle and someone who deeply believes in the solution and the reconciliation between the two communities. THose who do not want a solution may disagree with him and that that is part od the democratic game. But to question his integrty, I simply cannot accept. We see no point trying to pursuade anyone about this. Anyone who follwes Cypriot politics can judge.
Can we have a proper debate rather than allow any provocateur to spoil matters?
THe issue is that we need to move on and i hope Anastasiades finds his senses again; if not, well history will judge. In the meantime we must carry on in our efforts to find a solution as soon as possible
@Trim
I will disagree slightly
Anastassiades or Christofias should find his senses again? Do you really believe that right noe the problem is in Anastassiades’ camp?
@Pavlo
Of course it takes two tango and both sides need to agree. but at this moment it is anastasiades who has put the unity of his party above the Cyprus problem: the argument that he has lost faith in the process is a non-starter – he can just give it another 3-6 months. we are the most critical moment. That is being a statesman. If it fails he has plenty of time to campaigning for the presidency! Otherwise he will have a major contribution in the failure, the last one tothat reunites the country..
@Trim: «Personally, I refuse to engane in this insulting game. We should not allow anyone to drag the level of the debate to these levels.» «allow any provocateur to spoil matters?»
This Blog is systematically trying to discredit people that have a different point of view as far as the solution is concerned. Why do you react now?
My (provocateur) option for Mr. Hatzidemetriou are stated here, if you do not agree delete them!
Repeating:
1) High rank officer of EDEK one of the hard liners in Cyprus Problem
2) He left EDEK not because of political disagreements but because he believed he should be EDEK president
3) I stated a controversy, how a man can be against a Federation solution and support Annan Plan?
4) What about the positions he got proposed by AKEL?
@Raftis: I try to locate this speech and i will get back to this.
@Γόρδιος: You do this Gordios but I think you will have a hard job to discredit Takis Hadjidemetriou because he has always been a much respected politician. I also think that you have a very selective memory, probably because you are an EDEK person and you cannot bring yourself to see reality, outside party goggles. I am not accusing you of this because party loyalty is very important with some people.
I would like to point out to you that changing ones mind is not a cardinal sin by any means. You used this as a means to discredit Hadjidemetriou and this simply is not accepted. You also said quite explicitly that Hadjidemetriou left EDEK not for moral reasons but for personal ones. You must always substantiate such accusations or you stand to be ridiculed. If he was against federation in the 80′s it does not mean that he would die harbouring the same ideas and thoughts. As people mature their ideas are likely to change and one would be asking questions if people did not evolve during their lives. Your dogmatic way of looking at things is also very obvious from the way you view Makarios. You cannot, it seems, bring yourself to bear, that it was Makarios who accepted BBF in the first place. Makarios understood late in his life (changed his mind, if you like) that going for the desirable only brought problems and tears to Cyprus and hence, he opted for the feasible. Perhaps you can point out some shortcomings for Makarios in your next post.
@Gordios
1. I think that you cannot distinguish the political issues one may believe in from the personal ambitions: this is a cynical view of life, politics, morality etc. Ofcourse the personal is political as our feminist friends have insisted fro years but refuse to deal with the political issue redcing it all down to personal ambitions, motives etc is something that that does not allow for public debate. You are entitled to your view of course but i think that the debate ends there.
2. This is where your view that «This Blog is systematically trying to discredit people that have a different point of view as far as the solution is concerned» derives from. You simply see matters in purely subjective and insulting terms. There is no room for dicussion, change of mind, dilemmas and openness. This blog has different approaches to politics, life, morality etc but we share as a common denominator the view that Cyprus must be reunified on the basis of BBF. You disaggree with this basic premise. i respect that. What I cannot accept is that you accuse everyone of dragging all those who disagree to some gutter. No. I think you are wrong on this. the ethos and style of the responses show otherwise.
3. I disgreed with Takis in the 1980s but i never doubted his sincerity in what he believed in. I agree with him now. There are many others in the same position. I just hope that learning to respect others is a matter of education, culture and a way of living. At the same time one can fiercely and with passion support this or that view.
@Raftis: Για το θέμα του Χατζηδημητρίου δεν θα επεκτείνω άλλο τη συζήτηση είναι ξεκάθαρο ότι διαφωνούμε, και θα πω ότι για εμένα η στροφή του είναι ανάλογη με το να υποστήριζε σήμερα ο Κληρίδης επιστροφή στο ενιαίο κράτος. Το εάν αυτό τον κάνει discredit ή credible αυτό είναι στον καθένα να το κρίνει.
Για το θέμα που είχαμε διαφωνήσει τώρα για το τι συμφωνήθηκε μεταξύ Μακαρίου και Ντεκτάς:
Συμφωνία 1977
«1. Επιζητούμε μια ανεξάρτητη, αδέσμευτη δικοινοτική ομόσπονδη Δημοκρατία.
2. Το έδαφος υπό τη διοίκηση της κάθε κοινότητας πρέπει να συζητηθεί υπό το φως της οικονομικής βιωσιμότητας ή παραγωγικότητας και της ιδιοκτησίας γης.
3. Θέματα αρχών όπως η ελευθερία διακίνησης, ελευθερία εγκατάστασης, το δικαίωμα περιουσίας και άλλα εξειδικευμένα ζητήματα, είναι ανοικτά για συζήτηση, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τη θεμελιώδη βάση ενός δικοινοτικού ομοσπονδιακού συστήματος και ορισμένες πρακτικές δυσκολίες, οι οποίες μπορεί να προκύψουν για την τουρκοκυπριακή κοινότητα.
4. Οι εξουσίες και αρμοδιότητες της κεντρικής ομοσπονδιακής κυβέρνησης θα είναι τέτοιες, ώστε να διασφαλίζουν την ενότητα της χώρας λαμβανομένου υπόψη και του δικοινοτικού χαρακτήρα του κράτους. »
Έχουν γίνει διάφορες και άκρως αντίθετες αναλύσεις για το τι ακριβώς είχαμε δεχθεί τότε, θα παραθέσω μόνο μια φράση του Μιλτιάδη Χριστοδούλου από το βιβλίο του «Κύπρος η Διχοτόμηση» – σελίδα 159 «Έμεινε επίσης αδιευκρίνιστο το σημείο για την Ομοσπονδία. Καθοριζόταν ως δικοινοτική χωρίς να αναφέρεται ως πολύ-περιφερειακή ή διζωνική»
Λέγεται ότι προφορικά είχε δεχθεί την διζωνική λύση και φοβόταν να το ανακοινώσει. Το σημαντικό όμως είναι ότι αυτό δεν είχε καταγραφεί πουθενά.
Τελικά ούτε εγώ ούτε και εσύ είχαμε δίκιο για το 1977.
Μου ήταν ανατριχιαστικό να διαβάζω – θυμηθώ το τι επιζητούσαν οι Τούρκοι το 1977 ακριβώς ότι καταγράφηκε τελικά στο Ανάν! ρίξε μια ματιά και θα δεις τι εννοώ.
καλά ρε Γόρδιε τι μας λαλείς; εν θκιαβάζεις τι παραθέτεις;
τι σημαίνει «το έδαφος υπό την διοίκηση της ΚΑΘΕ κοινότητας»;
εν θωρείς ότι εν αναφορά σε δυο εδαφικές περιοχές η κάθε μια να αντιστοιχεί σε μια κοινότητα;
έλεος πκιον με τους ΕΔΕΚίτικους στρουθοκαμηλισμούς
2 περιφέρειες αλλά όι 2 ζώνες, διζωνικότητα αλλά όι κοινοτικές πλειοψηφίες σε ιδιοκτησία γης τζιαι πληθυσμού, παραμονή πέραν των 50 000 εποίκων αλλά πρώτα να παραδεχτεί η Τουρκία ότι εν έγκλημα πολέμου. μα νομίζετε ο κόσμος τρώει κόνναρα;
@Gregoris: Όϊ εν το θορώ “το έδαφος υπό την διοίκηση της ΚΑΘΕ κοινότητας” = Δικοινοτική, το έδαφος της ΚΑΘΕ κοινότητας μπορεί να είναι σε ΠΟΛΛΕΣ ΠΕΡΙΟΧΕΣ-ΖΩΝΕΣ, άμπα τζαι εν εσού που εν’ θωρείς;
Καλά ρε παιδιά, εν φανερό: κάποιοι αρνούνται να συνδιαχειριστοούμε το κράτος με τους Τ/Κ. Προτιμούν μια κύπρο μοιρασμένη που να διαχειρόνται μόνο οι Ε/Κ, παρά μια επανενωμένη αλλά με κοινή διαχείρηση. Και το ντύνουν πατριωτικά, ή φοβικά ή με κινδυνολογία. Τουλάχιστον ας το που ανοικτά για να πάμε μπροστά στο διάλογο μεταξύ μας. βέβαια ο τάσσος κι ο Λιλλήκας το είπαν όταν μιλούσαν για το στατους κβο ως τη «δεύτερη καλύτερη λύση», αλλά τα μάσησαν πάλαι μετά.
Το μένος που ξέσπασε γιατί για πρώτη φορά συμφωνήσμε πάνω στο συνταγματικό και το διαμοιραμό της εξουσίας δείχνει ξεκάθαρα ότι:
1. Υπάρχουν δομημένα συμφέρονται που δεν θέλουν να έχουμε από κοινού ασκηση εξουσίας με τους Τ/Κ, αλλά να ελέγχοουμε τοο κράτος απο μόνοι μας και να τρώμε τις μίζες και τα συμβόλαια, να πουλούμε ιδεολογίες περί εθνικής καθρότητα κια φούμαρα περί απελευθέρωσης κτλ. Γνωστό παραμύθι.
2. Μια ισχυσρή μερίδα της Ε/Κ εθνικιστικής ιδεολογίας είναι οικοδομημένη πάνψ στην ιδέα της ηγεμονευσης και δεν μπορεί να καν να φναταστεί ότι θα έχουμε ένα ομόσπονδο κράτος.
3. Είναι φανερό ότι αυντονίζονται οι διάφορες ομαδούλλες, κομματούθκια κτλ με τον επκοινωνιολόγο τους που πληρώνει ο αρχιεπίσκοπος.
Εγώ πάντως ποντάρω στο ότι τόσο στην δημοκρατική/προοδευτική Αριστερά, όσο στη δημοκρατική/φιλελεύθερη Δεξιά υπάρχουν δυνάμεις που βλέπουν πιο μακρια κι ότι θα πρυτανεύσει η λογική που θέλει την επανένωση πάνω στη βάση της ΔΔΟ. Δεν υπάρχει άλλος τρόπος. Γι αυτό κι ψυχρός πόλεμος ανάμεσα στα δύο μεγάλα κόμματα πρέπει να αφετθεί στην ιστορία και να κοιτάξουμε μπροστά.
τι σημαίνει η κάθε κοινότητα σε πολλές περιοχές ζώνες;
1. άμπα τζιαι εννοείς η τ/κ κοινότα να ζιει σε πολλούς αυτοδιοικούμενους θύλακες;
2. οξά η ε/κ κοινότητα να αποτελεί παραπάνω που μιαν συνιστώσα πολιτεία για σκοπούς αντιπροσώπευσης σε ομοσπονδιακό επίπεδο;
3. οξά απλά να υπάρχουν καντόνια της μιας κοινότητας στην περιοχή της άλλης;
διαφώτισμας να δούμεν
@Gregoris: Το τι σημαίνει σήμερα, ίσως και τίποτε, ο λόγος που κατέγραψα τις συμφωνίες του 77 ήταν μια διαφωνία με τον Ράφτη, που είναι καταγεγραμμένη πάρα πάνω.
Οι λόγοι που η ΕΚ πλευρά ποτέ δεν ήθελε την διζωνικότητα είναι γιατί φοβόταν (και σήμερα ακόμα) το ότι μια ενδεχόμενη κατάρρευση του κράτους, ειλημμένη ή μη, η οποία με δεδομένη την ύπαρξη μιας ενιαίας περιοχής θα έκανε την ΔΙΧΟΤΟΜΗΣΗ πολύ ευκολότερη για την ΤΚ πλευρά.
@Trim: άμα μας πεις τι ΤΕΛΙΚΑ ποιο είναι το ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΟ της ΔΔΟ θα συζητήσουμε.
ο Προβοκάτορας Γόρδιος
@Trim: Και για να μην βλέπεις εχθρούς και φαντάσματα, ξέρω πολύ καλά και αναγνωρίζω ότι δεν είναι δυνατό να πάμε πίσω από τη ΔΔΟ αλλά δεν πανηγυρίζω και ούτε αντιμετωπίζω με ενθουσιασμό αυτή τη λύση.
Η ΔΔΟ κατά τη γνώμη μου μπορεί εύκολα να μετατραπεί σε εφιάλτη, όπως και εσύ γνωρίζεις δεν είναι όλοι οι Κύπριοι Προοδευτικοί, και ούτε πρόκειται να γίνουν. Είναι και θέμα εμπιστοσύνης που απλά δεν υπάρχει.
Μαζί με τη ΔΔΟ ήταν η υποχώρηση για να επιτευχθεί η πολυπόθητη λύση και η κατά το δυνατό άρση των τετελεσμένων, σε ποιο βαθμό θα γίνει αυτό, αυτό είναι το ζητούμενο: ΤΟ ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΟ της λύσης και όχι η ετικέτα.
@ΓΓόρδιε
Χαίρομαι για την ειλικρίνεια σου και γιατί βλέπεις τις πραγματικότητες. Ναι υπάρχουν κίνδυνοι να καταρρεύσει, αλλά απλά δεν υπάρχει άλλη επιλογή από:
(α) να δημιουργήσουμε ασφαλιστικές δικλίδες για να μην γίνει αυτό, πχ. νομικές δεσμεύσεις, αλλά πάνω απ’ όλα πολικούς δεσμούς εξ ου και η τεράστια σημασία της διασταυρούμενης ψήφου μέσα από την άμεση εκλογή του προέδρου κι αντιπροέδρου κτλ.
(β) να οικοδομήσουμε την πολιτική ενότητα κι εμπιστοσύνη ανάμεσα στους ε/κ και τ/κ
(γ)να δημιουργηθούν οικονομικοί και κοινωνικοί συνεκτικοί δεσμοί, τόσο από το κεφάλαιο, όσο από τις δυνάμεις της εργασίας και τα λεγόμενα μεσαία στρώματα
(δ) Το ευρύτερο πλαίσιο στο οποίο η Κύπρος ανήκει πχ ΕΕ.
(ε) Η ενταξιακή πορεία της Τουρκίας να συνεχίσει κι έτσι να υπάρχει κίνητρο και μοχλός πίεσης πάνω στην Τουρκία, τόσο για εκδημοκρατισμό, όσο για σεβασμό στους γείτονες της κτλ. Προσπάθεια βελτίωσης, αν όχι πλήρους απεμπλοκής από εγγυήσεις κτλ
Τώρα για το περιεχόμενο της λύσης, βλέπεις γίνονται συνομιλίες, κι απ’ ότι γνωρίζουμε όλο τα θέματα που θέλουμε να είναι εκεί τίθενται στο τραπέζι. Ας αναμένουμε.
@Γόρδιος: Γόρδιε, η βασική μου ένσταση σε σχέση με τι έγραψες για τον Χατζηδημητρίου εντοπίζεται στο ότι δεν ασκείς κριτική στις απόψεις του αλλά επιχειρείς τη διαβολή του επειδή, όπως γράφεις, άλλα πίστευε το 1980 και άλλα σήμερα. Δεν γίνονται αυτά τα πράγματα από σοβαρούς ανθρώπους. Να ασκήσεις κριτική στη σημερινή του πολιτική, θέσεις και απόψεις και να αφήσεις το παρελθόν.
Όσο για το τι δέκτηκε ο Μακάριος, σε παραπέμπω σε ομιλία του Γιαννάκη Χριστοφίδη, τότε υπουργού Εξωτερικών, στο Συμβούλιο Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ, στις 31 Αυγούστου 1977, κατά την οποία είπε επί λέξη «η ελληνοκυπριακή πλευρά είχε συμφωνήσει για Διζωνική Ομοσπονδία». Νομίζεις το είπε χωρίς την έγκριση του Μακάριου;
@Raftis: Είναι προφανές ότι δεν συμφωνώ με τη στάση του Χ»Δημητρίου τα τελευταία χρόνια και δεν με πείθει.
Είμαι σίγουρος ότι κάνεις κάπου λάθος, γιατί ο Μακάριος πέθανε την 3η Αυγούστου, 1977! ο Μακάριος συζητούσε την Διζωνική αλλά ΔΕΝ ΤΗΝ ΔΕΧΘΗΚΕ επισήμως ποτέ.
Μετά την εισβολή πολλά θέματα – αιτήματα των Τούρκων έμπαιναν στο τραπέζι, και η δική μας πλευρά με την πίεση της άρσης των τετελεσμένων έκανε κάθε φορά μια παραχώρηση, για να βρεθεί λύση αυτή η βραχυπρόθεσμη, και χωρίς στρατηγική αντιμετώπιση της κατάστασης μας οδήγησαν να φτάσουμε, σε κάποια θέματα πέραν των ορίων της λογικής.
Μπορείς να επιβεβαιώσεις αυτά που λέω με το κάνεις ανασκόπηση των θέσεων της ΤΚ το 1975 – 1977 και θα δεις ότι όλες σχεδόν οι πρόνοιες του τι ζήτησαν είναι στο Ανάν και συζητούνται σήμερα στις συνομιλίες. Έχουμε φτάσει στο σημείο μηδέν και δεν βρήκαμε ακόμα λύση!
Γόρδιε
Κοίταξε, έστω κι αν έχεις δίκαιο για το θέμα, ότι ο Μακάριος τότε δεν το δέχτηκε, πράγμα που δεν μπορεί νομίζω να εξαχθεί από τα γεγονότα, τί είναι το point σου για σήμερα; Δεν είναι δεσμευμένη η πλευρά μας να δεχτεί αυτή την βάση εφόσον ακόμα κι Τάσσος Παπαδόπουλος με τις γνωστές του θέσεις υπόγραψε συμφωνία που περιέχει αυτή την πρόνοια; Αλλά ας έρθουμε στην ουσία, σήμερα μετά από 36 χρόνια από το ’74 και 46 από το ’64 δεν νομίζεις ότι υπάρχει κοινωνία μοιρασμένη που θα θέλει χρόνια για να μπορέσει να επανενωθεί στην πράξη ακόμα και μετά την συμφωνία. Εγώ είμαι έτοιμος να συμβιώσω, να ψηφίσω και να εμπιστευτώ τους ομοϊδεάτες Τ/Κ, εσύ όμως δεν νομίζω να είσαι, όπως κι άλλοι Ε/Κ κι αντιστοίχως Τ/Κ. Το ελάχιστο που μπορούμε να κάνουμε είναι να οικοδομήσουμε κάτι έτσι τουλάχιστον να παιδιά μας να μπορέσουν. Υπάρχουν κίνδυνοι; Ναι, αλλά αυτό εξαρτάται, όπως είπες κι εσύ από περιεχόμενο της λύσης και το ευρύτερο πλαίσιο. Επίσης, δεν είναι πλέον απλά κάποιος απόμακρος «κίνδυνος» η μονιμοποίηση της διχοτόμησης, αλλά η αναπόφευκτη πραγματικότητα για την επόμενη γενιά, αν δεν αναχαιτιστεί τώρα με τη ΔΔΟ που είναι η μόνη εφικτή λύση που υπάρχει. Διαφωνείς;
@trim: Θα πρόσεξες ότι επιμένω πολλές φορές στην ορθότητα των ιστορικών γεγονότων. Αυτό το κάνω γιατί έχω παρατηρήσει ότι πολλά που λέγονται από τους πολιτικούς της κάθε παράταξης είναι η συστηματική αλλοίωση της αλήθειας και αυτό για μένα είναι το λιγότερο προσβολή μου ως πολίτη.
Οι κυβερνήσεις οφείλουν να εμπνέουν ΗΓΕΣΙΑ, ΟΡΑΜΑ και ΑΝΑΛΗΨΗ των ευθυνών τους για τις επιτυχίες, αποτυχίες και παραχωρήσεις ή κέρδη που έκαναν.
Έχω ενστάσεις για τον τρόπο που προσεγγίζουμε τη ΔΔΟ και αυτό δεν έχει να κάνει με κανένα ρατσισμό – που και πάλι ατυχώς προσπαθείς να μου προσδώσεις – έχω καταχωρήσει μια άποψη στο θέμα της εκ’ περιτροπής στο άρθρο του Στέλιου Π. γιατί για εμένα η επιχειρούμενη λύση – αυτή του μόνιμου εθνοτικού διαχωρισμού ΔΕΝ θα επιτύχει και θα πρέπει να δουλέψουμε προς την αποτροπή των διαχωριστικών προνοιών.
Επανένωση δεν μπορεί να γίνει όταν διαχωρίζεις τα πάντα σε ΤΚ ΕΚ αυτό θα φέρει την Διχοτόμηση.
Η λύση ΔΔΟ που μπορεί να λειτουργήσει είναι αυτή που θα υποβοηθεί τη συνεργασία τη συμβίωση, ΔΔΟ δεν σημαίνει καθαρές εθνικές περιοχές αυτό δεν θα το δεχθώ ποτέ ως πρόσφυγας και ως άνθρωπος.
@Γόρδιος: Πρόσφατα, ερωτήθηκε ο Νίκος Ρολάνδης επί του θέματος και απάντησε ως ακολούθως: «Η διζωνικότητα φαίνεται ότι συζητήθηκε για πρώτη φορά στη συνάντηση Μακαρίου – Ντενκτάς το 1977, στις 12 Φεβρουαρίου. Ο Μακάριος πέθανε λίγο μετά. Σημειώστε ότι ο όρος «διζωνικός» ή «διζωνική» δεν μπήκε στη συμφωνία Μακαρίου – Ντενκτάς. Γίνεται αναφορά σε δικοινοτική ομοσπονδία, όχι σε διζωνική. Αλλά φαίνεται επίσης ότι υπήρξε αρκετή συζήτηση και ελέχθη ότι το περιεχόμενο της συμφωνίας εκείνης είχε την έννοια της διζωνικότητας. Ο Μακάριος, όμως, φαίνεται ότι ζήτησε να μην μπει εκείνη η ορολογία. Όταν απέθανε ο Μακάριος, περίπου τρεις εβδομάδες μετά, ο τότε υπουργός των Εξωτερικών, Γιαννάκης Χριστοφίδης, σε ομιλία του στο Συμβούλιο Ασφαλείας – στην οποία παρέστη η Κύπρος, η Ελλάδα και η Τουρκία – έκανε αναφορά στον όρο «διζωνικότητα». Έχω μπροστά μου την ομιλία του κ. Χριστοφίδη και το σημείο εκείνο στο οποίο αναφέρεται στη «διζωνικότητα» λέει: «Παρόλα αυτά, η ε/κ πλευρά, στην επιθυμία της να επιτύχει πρόοδο, έχει πάρει την αρκετά προωθημένη απόφαση/θέση να υποβάλει στις συνομιλίες της Βιέννης χάρτη, ο οποίος προνοεί για διζωνική λύση σε ότι αφορά την εδαφική πτυχή του προβλήματος». Ήταν η πρώτη εμφάνιση αυτής της ορολογίας, γι’ αυτό και ο Γιαννάκης Χριστοφίδης λίγες μέρες αργότερα, μιλώντας στη Γενική Συνέλευση το Σεπτέμβριο του ‘77, επανέλαβε αυτή την ορολογία».
@Raftis: Πριν πάει ο Μακάριος στη συνάντηση με τον Ντενκτας είχε επισκεφτεί τον Καραμανλή και συζήτησαν και αυτό το θέμα. Η ΕΚ πλευρά συζητούσε τη διζωνικότητα υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι το ποσοστό που θα δεχόταν η ΤΚ πλευρά ήταν 20%, άμεση επιστροφή των Βαρωσίων, επιστροφή των προσφύγων κλπ.
Αυτό είναι φανερό ότι δεν είχε επιτευχθεί οι ΤΚ απέφευγαν το θέμα αυτό, χαρακτηριστικές δηλώσεις έκανε ο Ντενκτας που όταν ρωτήθηκε για το εδαφικό είπε «Έχουμε στην κατοχή μας έδαφος πέραν του 32-33% γιατί να δεχθούμε με κάτι λιγότερο…»
Ο Χάρτης στον οποίο αναφέρεσαι είναι η απόδειξη συζητούσαμε Διζωνικότητα στα πλαίσια μιας «Package Deal» όπως κάνει ο Χριστόφιας σήμερα – με τις προσφορές του.
Αυτή η προσέγγιση ότι π.χ. Ο κληρίδης συζήτησε θέμα εποίκων ή ο Παπαδόπουλος έκανε πρόταση για το ίδιο θέμα στα πλαίσια ενός άλλου πλαισίου, αυτό ΔΕΝ ΣΗΜΑΙΝΕΙ ΟΤΙ ΤΟ ΕΧΟΥΜΕ ΑΠΟΔΕΧΘΕΙ!!!!!